web analytics

AN ENERGISED PRESIDENT…

By ATWadmin On January 24th, 2007

I was pleased to hear President Bush outline in his State of the Union speech the importance to the US of finding new sources of energy that will reduce its over-reliance on Middle Eastern Oil. New technology, alternative sources of energy, and clean Nuclear energy all have a role to play in this. Naturally, the BBC instantly dismissed the entire speech – they’re probably still fantasising about President Hillary Clinton. It would be great if the US can lead the world in finding better alternatives to "foreign oil". No blood for oil, as the lefties like to say. 

12 Responses to “AN ENERGISED PRESIDENT…”

  1. Bush is following up on his comment last year that America "is addicted to oil". Though he is still dragging his feet on Kyoto he is doing the right thing by aiming to reduce petrol consumption by 20% in 10 years.

    Meanwhile back in Blighty our dependence on the basket-case middle east for oil and on Russian gangsters for gas grows by the year.

  2. Bush has about as much chance of getting his domestic agenda passed as I have of being elected head mullah in Iran. However, even an acknowledgment of the direction we have to go is helpful.

  3. I can agree with Peter about our need to reduce our dependence on Middle East Oil and Russian Gas and I know that he agrees with me that Nuclear Power is our way forward in this matter. Tidal power from a Severn Barrage would also be a realistic addition to our energy needs but, as yet, government does not seem to have grasped the urgency.

    Meanwhile, it has been reported that Solar Physicists in Russia have reached a "scientific consensus" that global cooling will set in within the next year or two reaching a temperature minimum somewhere around the middle of this century. Should they be correct in their prediction then we will need more energy (and lots of it) to cope.

  4. all in all it makes sense to start spending serious money on getting the next energy sopurce technology in place. Hydrogen? better Nuclear? Bio fuel? Solar? Tidal?

    Whatever it is, if is cleaner, cheaper and makes us less dependent on imports then everyone will be happy.

    Worry is that USA and Toyota / Honda will take too big a lead in the technology and the rest of the world will have to look to them to build the hardware.

  5. On the subject of Presidents…mostly OT I know but for a good guide to what the (Right but not extreme Right) Republican Party is *really* thinking as to who Bush’s successor should be…

    http://pajamasmedia.com/strawpoll2008/results.php

    McCain is NOWHERE.

  6. DSD – Interesting but it is a blog, not a poll. McCain is pretty entrenched in the primary states and the shine will start to come off Rudy (who I like) during the election season.

  7. Peter,

    Totally agree with your last line – UK has its head in the sand.

  8. Peter T
    Can you link to your Russian physcists prediction?

    I think you are referring to a Maunder Minimum, but the latest IPCC report due next month will say that man-made emissions are five times as strong as sunspots in causing the observed warming in the 20th century.

    For Maunder Minimum see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

  9. Peter,

    The link you requested is
    http://antigreen.blogspot.com
    You will also find it if you Google ‘Greenie Watch’
    Scroll down to Jan 24, an article entitiled "Peer Reviewed Global Cooling" You might find some of the other reported papers interesting also.

    The Russians accept that, in the West, their solar hypothesis is not generally accepted although support is growing (see the article concerning a new book by Singer and Avery again on Greenie Watch)

    By the way, can you give me a link from where you deduce that man made emissions are five times more effective than sunspots in causing observed warming?

    Finally regarding the Maunder Minimum. This may well be what the Russians are referring to although it is not mentioned by name – but the time period tallys

  10. Peter T

    An advance summary of the IPCC report is here:
    http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1995472,00.html

    "And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun’s output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind’s industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. We are the masters of our own destruction, in short."

  11. Interesting link Peter T.

    The page includes this:

    Dr Richard Betts of the Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change said: "The key argument among sceptics has moved away from denying that there is man-made climate change to saying that it is weaker than mainstream science has suggested. "It is very well understood that greenhouse gases do cause radiative forcing. The work on cosmic rays is still quite speculative. The forthcoming report by IPCC next month will be the most reviewed document in the history of science. It is the IPCC process to review all the literature with an open mind. Many sceptics are involved in the process. "It is good to have the debate. It makes sure that the rest of us are certain about what we are doing."

  12. A balanced comment on "solar" global warming:

    "5. Is Global Warming Solar or Man-made?

    The vested interests on both sides of the argument between the “greenhouse” party and the “solar warming” party are obvious. Scientifically, the meteorologists, climatologists, and atmospheric physicists, who were responsible for “discovering” the human contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, have been the most consistent champions of its importance, while the solar physics community, and especially those interested in solar-terrestrial relations, have increasingly stressed the possible importance of the long-term variations of the solar constant as the chief cause of climate change. Both communities tend to take the change for granted, and to neglect any purely statistical or chaotic effects which could lead to excursions of the Earth’s surface temperature during periods of a couple of decades, without requiring a secular change either in the solar constant or in atmospheric transparency. In addition, the debate is conditioned by more powerful vested-interest groups. The oil industry in all its guises would obviously like to believe, and would like the public to believe, that greenhouse warming has been greatly exaggerated, and exploits any genuine scientific differences to undermine the credibility of the climatologists. Solar physics has been losing ground steadily compared with other branches of astrophysics during the past few decades, and many of its practicioners have seen solar climate change as a chance to move into an area where funding may be more assured. These aspirations are of course legitimate, and there is indeed much work to be done in the field, but one should be aware of the political background to this delicate issue, and not fall into the trap of using possible solar warming as an excuse for delay in reducing man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. Whatever the magnitude of the effects of these in the long term, there is no doubt that their concentration has increased dramatically in the past 30 years, and that for many reasons this is not a desirable path to follow."

    See
    http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/lisa3/beckmanj.html

    The above is from paragraph 5, but 1-3 provide an interesting summary of the evidence for the Maunder Minimum.